VittSphere ONE Calculators Blog CA Prabhakar Kumar · FCA · ICAI 560762
Case lawIncome-tax Act 2025Chapter XXII › Section 488
Chapter XXIIwas s.278C

Section 488 of the Income-tax Act, 2025

Section 488 — Offences by Hindu undivided family. Successor to s.278C of the 1961 Act.

Where this section sits

Section 488 is in Chapter XXII — Offences and Prosecutions, which runs from section 473 to section 498.

← Section 487  ·  Section 489 →

What this section does

Sub-section (1) provides that where an offence under the Act has been committed by a Hindu undivided family, the karta is deemed guilty of the offence and is liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Sub-section (2) removes that liability where the karta proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge, or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent it. Sub-section (3) provides, irrespective of sub-sections (1) and (2), that where such an offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, any member of the family, that member is also deemed guilty and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

Why it is there

A Hindu undivided family cannot itself be tried and punished, so the Act attributes the offence to the individual who manages its affairs. The defence in sub-section (2) confines that attribution to a karta who knew or failed to take care, rather than making the office itself an offence, and sub-section (3) reaches past him to a member whose consent, connivance or neglect explains the offence.

Who it applies to

What this means in practice

The deeming in sub-section (1) is automatic on the family's offence, and the burden of escaping it lies on the karta, who must prove either absence of knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence — the standard the sub-section sets, not reasonable care. Sub-section (3) is independent: it opens with an override, so a member can be proceeded against even where the karta's defence succeeds, and the word is "also", so it adds a person rather than substituting one. What must be proved against the member is different in kind — consent, connivance or attributable neglect, whereas the karta's liability arises from the family's offence alone.

An example

Illustrative only, and invented for this page. The figures are chosen to show the rule biting, not taken from any real matter.

A Hindu undivided family commits an offence under the Act. The karta is deemed guilty and may be proceeded against unless he proves it happened without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent it. If it is separately proved that another member consented to or connived at the offence, or that it is attributable to his neglect, that member is also deemed guilty under sub-section (3), irrespective of whether the karta's defence succeeds.

Where you meet this section

You meet this section in a criminal prosecution launched under the Act against a Hindu undivided family, where it decides who is put in the dock — the karta by operation of sub-section (1), and any member brought in under sub-section (3).

The words themselves

the karta thereof shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly
Section 488(1), Income-tax Act, 2025.
if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence
Section 488(2), Income-tax Act, 2025.
has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any member of the Hindu undivided family, such member shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence
Section 488(3), Income-tax Act, 2025.

What people get wrong

What this replaced

The correspondence is the Income Tax Department’s own, from its comparison utility for the 1961 and 2025 Acts. A renumbering is the easy half; whether the words changed is the half that decides cases.

See the full 1961 to 2025 concordance.

Case law carried across

Read this before you rely on it. Every decision below was decided under the Income-tax Act, 1961. It appears here because it is tagged to a 1961 provision that the department’s own mapping carries to section 488. That is an inference we have drawn, not a holding on the new section: where the words changed in the move, the reasoning may not survive. Treat this as the place to start looking, not as authority on the 2025 Act.
What this page does not tell you. It does not reproduce the section. Everything above was written from the section’s own text as the Income Tax Department publishes it — the text is here, and nothing here is advice on your facts. Where a figure matters, read the sub-section it comes from.